bobthedug
Well-Known Member
Not all the facts are covered by the 100 rule. Lord Cullen I believe actually allowed the disclosure of certain elements covered by the rule due to the number of people and sections of the media perpetuating falsehoods
Changes to Firearms Licensing. What would you do?
- Thread starter User00035
- Start date
And the rest?
bobthedug
Well-Known Member
The horrific manner and method by which the wee ones were murdered was a major factor in the implementation of this rule.
However, this is not what the conspiracy theorist believe.
The truth does not sell books or newspapers
Oracle
Well-Known Member
Yes...BASC on Talk Radio and also balanced comment in the Daily Mail, Guardian and Evening Standard.
Nothing from CA, SACS, NRA, NGO, CPSA as far as I am aware.
As one would expect low key, no tub thumping and stressing the importance of awaiting the findings of the relevant enquiries.
Vulpes
Well-Known Member
The home office correspondent from the Telegraph has seen the draft changes and written a short piece about them. The core details are below, obviously these are subject to change and will apparently be released this autumn.
As well as checks on applicants’ social media profiles, highlighted at the weekend by the Home Office, the statutory guidance sets out “additional checks” that police officers should complete to “assess suitability accurately”.
The checklist includes a drug or alcohol test, credit or other financial checks, interviews with neighbours, partners or representatives of shooting clubs, and background or medical checks on “partners or other individuals living at, or with unsupervised access to, the applicant’s address”.
Officers are advised to go further if they suspect domestic abuse. Where domestic abuse is suspected, police are told to interview partners and, “where known and proportionate”, ex-partners – and be prepared to protect them from reprisals if the application is rejected.
Telegraph readers can view the article here: Gun licence applicants to face drug and alcohol testing in wake of Plymouth shooting
As well as checks on applicants’ social media profiles, highlighted at the weekend by the Home Office, the statutory guidance sets out “additional checks” that police officers should complete to “assess suitability accurately”.
The checklist includes a drug or alcohol test, credit or other financial checks, interviews with neighbours, partners or representatives of shooting clubs, and background or medical checks on “partners or other individuals living at, or with unsupervised access to, the applicant’s address”.
Officers are advised to go further if they suspect domestic abuse. Where domestic abuse is suspected, police are told to interview partners and, “where known and proportionate”, ex-partners – and be prepared to protect them from reprisals if the application is rejected.
Telegraph readers can view the article here: Gun licence applicants to face drug and alcohol testing in wake of Plymouth shooting
Morkai
Well-Known Member
Most of that sounds pointless.
OK, I'll accept that there was no masonic connection.
But it's my understanding (via an extremely good source) that Hamilton was known to the ACC and it was that connection which resulted in the FEOs recommendation for revocation to be over ruled by the ACC and Hamiltons certificate being renewed.
Cheers
Bruce
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
Most of it sounds like bullsheet!
I'm not convinced much fo that will make any difference to assessing suitability. I guess drug or alcohol tests could detect addicts but will not catch people able to go 'clean' when they know the test is coming.
A bit of due dil on others living at the address does actually seems sensible, but I thought they already made enquiries as I know the HO guidance does refer to suitability including who the applicant associates with. The one I am not keen on is discussion with neighbours. I deliberately keep a low profile about shooting as I can't take for granted that my neighbours won't be antis and, if they are, it could sour otherwise perfectly good relations. If they are going to do that, they will need to keep in mind that some people will deliberately try to derail someone's application, for their own spiteful reasons.
In my view background checks need to be used as part of an overall evaluation and to assist further enquires, not as a determining factor on their own unless they reveal something unequivocally problematic. Anyone asked may have their own agenda which FEOs ought to be alert to.
A bit of due dil on others living at the address does actually seems sensible, but I thought they already made enquiries as I know the HO guidance does refer to suitability including who the applicant associates with. The one I am not keen on is discussion with neighbours. I deliberately keep a low profile about shooting as I can't take for granted that my neighbours won't be antis and, if they are, it could sour otherwise perfectly good relations. If they are going to do that, they will need to keep in mind that some people will deliberately try to derail someone's application, for their own spiteful reasons.
In my view background checks need to be used as part of an overall evaluation and to assist further enquires, not as a determining factor on their own unless they reveal something unequivocally problematic. Anyone asked may have their own agenda which FEOs ought to be alert to.
Looking at Tim and others comments, shooters as a group walk a fine line. In my view, it is in our interest to keep unsuitable people out but our future also depends on new people taking up the pastime to replace those leaving.
Tim's proposals strike me as being so rigorous they would seriously deter people taking up the sport. It is easy enough to get into shooting if you know someone who can guide you and allow you to shoot before you take the plunge and get licensed. If you're not that lucky, it is a pretty daunting prospect. To spend literally years in probation, during which you could only pursue one type of shooting, e.g. shotgun or rifle, would put so many off. Forcing people to join a club would also be deleterious to our numbers, too many clubs seem to relish formality for its own sake, which hardly gives a welcoming appearance.
If formal training was to be a requirement, and I am not in favour of that, then I would prefer the DSC style course. You pay a modest fee, do a couple of days on a course and you are accredited. Placing people at the mercy of their local club's committee would be a huge mistake.
Questions of how best to assess suitability aside, suitability does seem to be where FLDs should be focussing their attention. As someone (apologies, I can't remember who) has observed, mass shooting by mentally unstable people are a new phenomenon and the Firearms Acts have been geared towards preventing organised criminals, terrorist organisation, insurrectionists etc amassing arms and have a lot of bureaucracy based around this aim. Think of limits on numbers, 1 for 1s, conditions etc which can only be explained (if we discount a wilful desire to make life hard for shooters) as being geared towards stopping people arming a number of people. It is clear what it really needs to focus on is spotting oddballs.
If there is to be real reform, it should focus on clearing FEOs time to assess suitability as fully as possible and strip out all unnecessary rules which do little to nothing for public safety. Personally, I could get behind having further scrutiny placed on my suitability to be granted a license if the process once I had that license was considerably simplified.
Tim's proposals strike me as being so rigorous they would seriously deter people taking up the sport. It is easy enough to get into shooting if you know someone who can guide you and allow you to shoot before you take the plunge and get licensed. If you're not that lucky, it is a pretty daunting prospect. To spend literally years in probation, during which you could only pursue one type of shooting, e.g. shotgun or rifle, would put so many off. Forcing people to join a club would also be deleterious to our numbers, too many clubs seem to relish formality for its own sake, which hardly gives a welcoming appearance.
If formal training was to be a requirement, and I am not in favour of that, then I would prefer the DSC style course. You pay a modest fee, do a couple of days on a course and you are accredited. Placing people at the mercy of their local club's committee would be a huge mistake.
Questions of how best to assess suitability aside, suitability does seem to be where FLDs should be focussing their attention. As someone (apologies, I can't remember who) has observed, mass shooting by mentally unstable people are a new phenomenon and the Firearms Acts have been geared towards preventing organised criminals, terrorist organisation, insurrectionists etc amassing arms and have a lot of bureaucracy based around this aim. Think of limits on numbers, 1 for 1s, conditions etc which can only be explained (if we discount a wilful desire to make life hard for shooters) as being geared towards stopping people arming a number of people. It is clear what it really needs to focus on is spotting oddballs.
If there is to be real reform, it should focus on clearing FEOs time to assess suitability as fully as possible and strip out all unnecessary rules which do little to nothing for public safety. Personally, I could get behind having further scrutiny placed on my suitability to be granted a license if the process once I had that license was considerably simplified.
I quite happy with the idea of safety training but I don't believe you need club membership.
Morkai
Well-Known Member
A lot of clay grounds and shooting clubs are full of anoraks and gun snobs, I have no interest in joing one at all. I prefer to walk the fields when I go shooting.
And what difference would that make, bugger all, best also check the applicants sex life as he had problems having one.
bottletopbill
Well-Known Member
Yes totally agree as I started out rough shooting over fifty years ago with a SGC . Put in for my FAC three years ago and only just joining a rifle club.
My nephew wants to get his first shotgun licence so why should he be forced to join a club when he as been out with me for a few years now.
Been to a few clubs and all have different rules so confusing both clays and rifles ?
My nephew wants to get his first shotgun licence so why should he be forced to join a club when he as been out with me for a few years now.
Been to a few clubs and all have different rules so confusing both clays and rifles ?
Similar threads
